Over the past several weeks I, and many of my fellow cinemablography contributors, have been spending a lot of time analyzing the remake, and the reboot, especially through the lens of cultural interpretation. We're looking at different versions of the same culture throughout history interpreting the same stories again and again, and trying to find out what each retelling says about the culture that did the telling.A monster in the 1930’s, becomes a hero in the aughts (http://www.cinemablography.org/blog/dracula-as-a-superhero-reviewing-dracula-untold). A goofy protector of children from the 1960's gets reinterpreted as a uncaring force of nature in more modern times (http://www.cinemablography.org/blog/slouching-towards-tokyo-sixty-years-under-the-shadow-of-godzilla). Today I want to discuss one of the most recent interpretations of a classic figure in popular culture that has endured for over a hundred years: Sherlock Holmes.The greatest, and original, consulting detective in London first appeared in print in 1887, in The Strand magazine, in a serialized novel where he, with his friend and confidant Dr. John Watson, faced off against a gang of evil Mormons.Since then Mr. Holmes has been consulted in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, only a comparatively small number (about 60) of which were written by his original creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.He’s been in novels, short stories, audio dramas, video games, television and, of course, film.He’s inspired countless other detective characters with his particular brand of crime-solving through observation and deduction. Recently a whole slew of new Holmes related material has sprung up, with a movie franchise, two TV series (one American and one British) and the direct to video market all with their own distinctive versions of the great detective.The public seems to have responded quite favorably to most of these products, causing a wave of Holmes hysteria across the internet.Most of this praise of late however has been directed at one iteration in particular: the BBC’s Sherlock (Gatiss, and Moffatt 2010-present).The series was created by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffatt, two Sherlock Holmes fans who met while they were both writing for another BBC show with worldwide success: Doctor Who (Newman, Webber, and Wilson 1963-present).Moffatt had had success adapting and updating the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde for the BBC in his series Jekyll (Moffatt 2007) so the idea of doing the same kind of thing with Sherlock seemed like a good idea.The two worked together to try and create a unique feel for the show that would be in keeping with the original stories but still have enough room to grow, change, and surprise the audience every now and again. Up and coming character actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman were cast in the title roles of Holmes and Watson respectively.Due to the BBC’s mistrust of the series potential for success, the first series (in Britain a “series” is equivalent to an American show's “season”) was only three 90 minute episodes long.This is a trend that has continued throughout the shows run despite its success so that now though we are three series in there are only 9 episodes.

Holmes through the ages. From left to right: Benedict Cumberbatch, Robert Downey Jr., Jeremy Brett, and Basil Rathbone.

The series is certainly one of the more unique adaptations of Holmes’ adventures I can name,which is something when you consider that Sherlock Holmes has been played by almost every English actor who was working in the 1970’s from Christopher Lee to Roger Moore.As with most Holmes tales it begins with Doctor John Watson returning from fighting in Afghanistan. Essentially homeless and with few friends to call upon for help, he begins searching for a new flat-mate and ends up bunking with a strange, seemingly unemployed man named Sherlock Holmes.Eventually Sherlock reveals his occupation to John.He’s a consulting detective, “when the police are out of their depth they consult me.” Sherlock, now with John by his side, investigates London’s strangest cases, solving the unsolvable and battling evil doers throughout the city, and sometimes the world.This modern Holmes uses cellphones, and modern crime labs to solve his cases, but his observational and deductive skills are still as brilliant as ever.

Any adaptation of Sherlock Holmes that remains true to the source material has to be a tightrope walk.You have to balance Holmes’ arrogance with his heroism, and Watson’s ignorance with his usefulness.Holmes has little regard for stupidity and unfortunately also sees the rest of the world as being full of stupid people.Holmes solves crimes because he loves the thrill of it.He needs the mental rush of puzzle solving (which is why he is often depicted as a drug addict, or in this version as a recovering cigarette smoker).But at the same time he puts himself on the side of law and order, he could very easily become the world’s greatest criminal mastermind but he does not.Watson’s job most of the time is to not understand something.Holmes walks into a room and declares, “The butler did it!” Watson’s job is to say, “but Holmes! How could you know that?”And then Holmes will explain. The problem with this is that while Watson is not as smart as Holmes, he is still capable and useful to Holmes; otherwise he wouldn’t keep him around.So Watson can never be portrayed as an idiot.

This show walks these lines by directly calling attention to them.Like most of Moffatt’s writing Sherlock is a meta-commentary on itself.As Sherlock and John travel about solving mysteries and facing off against longtime nemeses like Moriarty or Irene Adler the show also has the characters confront their own natures.Sherlock is constantly confronted with the knowledge that he is not normal.He never regrets this fact, but his overly analytical mind makes it so he can’t communicate or understand normal people the same way John does.Watson is constantly dealing with the way people perceive him as Holmes’ pet, or even his boyfriend.Holmes and Watson’s close friendship has often been a point of speculation as to whether or not the two share a sexual relationship.This series confronts this head on by having the characters grow closer as friends over time while constantly being referred to as a couple by casual observers.Watson loudly and angrily proclaiming, “I’M NOT GAY” has become a running gag at this point.Strangely enough this gag has caused some fans to believe that the characters will end up together. In effect, defeating the purpose of the gag completely.

Sherlock receives a text from his arch-enemy in this ultra modern twist on this character who formally worked by gaslight.

Steven Moffatt, as I said before, has been known for writing analysis of his characters into his scripts, but this is not unique to him.The most seemingly consistent trend that can be seen time and time again in modern adaptations of previously adapted source material is meta-commentary.Bruce Wayne creates Batman as a character and a theatrical device in The Dark Knight franchise, and it is only after he is dead that people start telling people about his adventures in legends that are implied to become the Batman stories that we knew before (http://www.cinemablography.org/batman.html).In Dracula Untold (Shores, 2014) Vlad the Impaler becomes a vampire to save his country and his people, afterwards the evil takes over and only then does he become the monster we know, and even then he is quite different from the Dracula of legend.These stories seek to examine our modern myths as if they were the real people who only later became the legendary figures we know through the lens of history.

Modern British characters are very different however from United States ones however.Characters like Superman and Batman were initially created to be somewhat flawless.They were made to be heroes we could look up to and aspire to be.Characters like Sherlock Holmes, or the Doctor from Doctor Who were never intended to be perfect.Sherlock, from Doyle’s very first story, was an insufferable know-it-all, a drug addict, and a generally pretentious git.His appeal has never been in his standing as a role model but in his cleverness.Therefore Moffatt has felt no need to say that Holmes is not the person that we thought he was, all he wants to do is confront Holmes himself with what we all know he is and see how he feels about it.

Beyond that the series is beautiful to look at.The cinematography and editing work together beautifully to give Sherlock’s London a unique, otherworldly feel much like the original stories had.There are also several editing tricks and special effects used to go inside the mind of Holmes and see how he thinks that are stunning the behold (in particular a scene from the end of season 3 where Sherlock is shot and must figure out how to survive the experience).The acting is brilliant in particular Cumberbatch’s performance as Sherlock, which has garnered him celebrity status on an almost disturbing level through a group that refer to themselves as the "Cumber-bitches" or sometimes the "Cumber-collective".The show ended its third series earlier this year, and the next one is currently set to premier sometime in 2016.

Background characters, they are the omnipresent Greek chorus of cinema. Be they angry mobs, cheering crowds, or casual bystanders, there is not a film genre in existence that is not graced with their intentionally forgettable performances. By their very nature, all background characters are inherently two-dimensional. However, it was not until I watchedThe Book of Life (Gutierrez, 2014) that I beheld such a literal representation of this quality.

While making this recent animated feature, director Gutierrez expressed a lifelong love of cinematic art books. Such tomes contain the original conceptual designs for characters, costumes, and sets. In a medium as versatile as animation, it is especially easy for all of these to undergo especially extreme revisions during the film’s development. Gutierrez stated, “I saw every single one that comes out and my biggest heartbreak is I see all this glorious art, and then the movie doesn’t look like that! The mandate of this movie was our ‘Art of…’ book is going to look exactly like the movie.”

Concept art for "The Book of Life."

In principle this goal is commendable, but all printed art is invariably two-dimensional andThe Book of Life features animation that is very much three-dimensional. A character design that looks amazing on paper is usually only meant to do just that. The moment you try to add a z-axis to a flat plane, you’re going to lose the benefit of forced perspective. Within America, hyper-flat two-dimensional animation has been well-received for years, for example,The Powerpuff GirlsMovie (McCracken, 2002) andSouth Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (Parker & Stone, 1999). It’s a minimalistic, but expressive style, which allows for exaggerations of physicality that are very effective.

On paper, the character designs presented inThe Book of Life are genuinely awe-inspiring. The color and detail represented is breath taking. Unfortunately, Gutierrez did not direct a “The Art Of …” book. This is where we run into a somewhat disconcerting visual paradigm. The character models for this movie are all over the place. The main characters are rendered with fairly realistic proportions. Their 3D models are akin to artists’ model mannequins and, as such, can perfectly convey human movement. However, beyond the few characters that drive the movie’s plot, the viewer will find that conventional aesthetics go right out the window. Secondary and background characters have grotesquely flattened features. It is not uncommon to see characters with five-foot proboscises jutting horizontally out of their faces with both nostrils flaring directly outward. It’s as if someone tried to make an animated feature based on Picasso’s cubist period. You might think this could lend itself to all sorts of wacky visual humor, however the exaggerated designs are never even addressed. No character ever has to limbo under someone’s ‘Tube Nose’. No, everyone just gives that character a conspicuously wide berth, which only serves to make such scenes appear conspicuously contrived.

2D Character Models from "The Book of Life."

I wouldn't even be writing about this, except for the fact thatThe Book of Life is so eager to demonstrate how much better it could look in a two-dimensional style. Throughout the movie, there are numerous flashbacks and asides that are portrayed in a hyper-flat two-dimensional format. In these sequences, even the most distorted character models look perfectly at home alongside the rest of the cast. With no third dimension to highlight the depth discrepancies between them, they all maintain a surprisingly uniform appearance. I realize that thus far this article must sound like I’m really coming down on The Book of Life. I won’t lie; initially, I felt thatThe Book of Life was a visually-confused movie, completely uncertain of what it wanted to be. However upon further reflection, it occurred to me that there was a reason that the characters with tube-noses and balloonish torsos were unnamed: they were totally superfluous background characters. They didn’t have to share the visual aesthetic of the protagonists, because they would never be directly interacting with any of them.

This is where the bizarre genius ofThe Book of Life comes into play. Every character’s depth is presented both literally and figuratively as the narrative plays out. The fully developed characters are presented as fully-articulated, three-dimensional models, while the two-dimensional background characters remain just that. Such a bold art design choice cannot easily be dismissed as a cheap gimmick or happy accident. No, the art design presented in this film is an act of inarguable brilliance: using a character’s literal depth to masterfully color the audience’s perceptions.

﻿Rocky is back... Well sort of. In an effort to revisit his past roles on film (a fifth Rambo is also in the works), Stallone will star alongside Michael B. Jordan, in the role of Apollo Creed’s grandson in Creed (Coogler, 2016). In this story Rocky will serve as a mentor to the young upstart boxer Adonis Creed. Set to begin filming in January of 2015 with a 2016 release, the film will be the first time since Rocky Balboa (Stallone, 2006) that Stallone will reprise his iconic role (Mercader). The Rocky films with their “David and Goliath” kind of plots, have inspired us to triumph over adversity for almost 4 decades. When Creed comes out in 2016 it will actually be on Rocky’s 40th anniversary. But I think what really made the Rocky films great was their relatability. Everyone in their life must overcome a series of obstacles in order to achieve anything. But the Rocky films tell us to dream big, that an impoverished struggling boxer can actually become heavyweight champion.

Rocky goes the distance with Apollo Creed in the first Rocky film.

The battle of East v. West, Rocky faces the Soviet Goliath Draggo in Rocky IV

There are many inspirational moments all throughout the series of films. Such moments as going the distance with Apollo, beating Goliath-like opponents such as “Clubber Lang” played by Mr. T, and “Draggo” portrayed by Dolph Lundgren, but probably the most iconic moment is the famous scene with Rocky running up the steps of Philadelphia Museum of Art. The top of the stairs was commemorated with an actual bronze statue of the "Italian Stallion" himself in Rocky III (Stallone, 1982) and was later donated to the city by Stallone.

The statue’s location has changed over the years (currently it is at the bottom of the stairs at the Philadelphia Museum of Art), but the enthusiasm of the fans reenacting the famous scene certainly has not. There are countless fans who make the famous run and visit the statue, making the steps now known as the “Rocky Steps” one of Philadelphia’s largest tourist attractions. In a ceremony for the statue’s new location in 2006 Stallone spoke about the character’s impact in popular culture in his dedication speech, “The statue being here, is not about me. It’s about you. Because believe me inside of every one of you, lives a real Rocky” (Stallone Rocky Statue Dedication Ceremony).

Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) quickly descends into madness in order to achieve the American dream

October brought about one of the most fun and exciting holidays, Halloween. Every year kids dress up in costumes and go trick or treating while people who are too old for this go looking for a good scare. In recent years one of the favorite places for people to go to be scared has been the cinema. Each October brings many new horror films made to give people a good fright. This year was different though. There was no wave of horror films as there usually is before Halloween this year; instead there was one horror film, Stiles White’s Ouija. When it was released it was met with very mixed to negative reviews leaving little to be desired from the Halloween box office. Luckily, this changed on Halloween night with the release of Dan Gilroy’s Nightcrawler. Few of the modern horror films do their job anymore, to scare, shock or simply terrify the audience. Many of Hollywood’s modern horror cinema leaves little more than cheap thrills; this is where Nightcrawler begins to change things. It doesn’t seem like it would be a very disturbing film, but it delivers more than any American horror film of the past several years. Nightcrawler tells the disturbing tale of Lou Bloom, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, and his unnerving descent into madness in order to achieve his American dream. In order to do this he begins a career in filming breaking news stories. Apart from Lou Bloom there is a powerful performance from Renee Russo, who plays a news producer and Bloom's connection in the world of ‘nightcrawling’. It is hard to imagine how a movie about a man filming news stories can be so creepy and disturbing. Once you see that almost every story involves a person being killed or seriously injured you begin to feel restless. One of the main factors that contributes to the film's creepiness and intensity is Gyllenhall’s portrayal of Bloom, whose skeletal frame and sociopathic descent makes the character even more terrifying. Gyllenhaal’s performance and a well-executed script make the film something more than a typical psychological thriller. Nightcrawler marks the first time for Gilroy in the director’s chair as he takes his own script to the screen. Gilroy is also the writer of the latest film in the Bourne series, The Bourne Legacy (Gilroy, 2012), which was directed by his brother, Tony. Although there are a few problems with the pacing of the film, this occurs early on and by the second half the film finds its pace. The flow of the movie takes the viewer on the stomach-churning journey into the mind of a man who will stop at nothing to get what he wants. This can be quite upsetting to watch, but there is a gracefulness to it, one that makes the film more intense and believable. This is the type of film one would want to see on Halloween, not one with cheap thrills and a poorly executed script, but one that takes the viewer on a dark trip into the underbelly of human nature. For those looking for a film to captivate and still give them that great horror thrill than look no further, for Nightcrawler delivers where other films come up short. It brings an almost perfect blend of a love for film and thrill seeking. The intensity of the film tends to also make it a physical experience, which is something that is hard to get from a movie anymore. This is not a film to be taken lightly, it is a dark and twisted tale that often shocks and horrifies the audience, but this is what makes the movie great. Nightcrawler, despite its bleak nature, is an enthralling film that is not to be missed.

There is much that could be said about Richard Linklater’s 2014 epic Boyhood. It is epic in scope because it effectively captures an entire childhood, and thus becomes the quintessential coming of age story in the 21st century. As someone who “came of age” as this movie was being filmed, I found it was very nostalgic and an accurate portrayal of white, middle-class American boyhood in the past decade. I will admit that my experience of growing up, with joy, drama and pain aplenty, was pretty removed from what the main character Mason (Ellar Coltrane) experienced, but I saw a lot of Mason’s story in many kids growing up around me. The complex familial relations, the searches for satisfaction and meaning are nothing new under the sun, but instead are retold in what is, for my generation, an extremely relevant way.

Mason (Ellar Coltrane) grows up before us on the screen, consuming much of the culture that we (or our peers) did in the past decade.

As someone who grew up in a two-parent family, never moving from the physical house I grew up in, Boyhood was an incredible trip inside the of life of someone who did not have such relational or locational constancy. When Mason’s mom (Patricia Arquette) married her community college professor, I was so intrigued and moved by how smoothly the brotherly and sisterly relationships formed between Mason, his sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), and their step-sister Mindy (Jamie Howard) and step-brother Randy (Andrew Villarreal). I was consequently devastated at their violent separation. This period of their life was an acutely painful one dealing with the alcoholism and physical abuse to which the middle-class is not immune. And then there is the entire notion of visiting the other parent on the off-weekends; seeing Mason’s biological dad (Ethan Hawke) develop and mature, becoming gradually a better adult and father, was as powerful and convicting as watching Mason and Samantha grow up.

As we watch Mason grow up, his father (Ethan Hawke) also grows and matures.

We first see the desperation and search for direction in Mason’s mother. We see her pursuing happiness throughout the movie in different ways. Bouncing between romance, education and occupation, she ultimately finds the most value in raising her kids. But even this isn’t enough. She has an emotional outburst at the end of the movie, as Mason is about to leave for college. She has been living from “milestone to milestone” in life, and now that she has a stable job, an advanced degree and an empty nest, the only milestone she sees ahead is her funeral, with a vibe echoing Ecclesiastes 1-2 (minus God and the whole finding satisfaction in one's toil). In an earlier scene, Mason makes a comment about his mom being just as confused as he is about the purpose of life and other existential questions. As the movie (and time) progresses, we see Mason become a deep-thinking artist, and the movie ends with on an appropriately vague statement about it not being we who seize the moment, but the moment that seizes us. Rolling along with the chaotic waves of circumstance is certainly the pattern of the characters in the movie and, whether we like that philosophy or not, it seems to be a common attitude of many boys and girls who came into adulthood around the same time that Mason did.

Towards the end of the film, Mason has to face his own share of disappointment, and starts to think deeply about life.

Viewing this movie as a boy who grew up watching PBS Kids, VeggieTales, playing educational computer games, and going to church, I was able to vicariously experience the lives of others of my generation. The goal of good movies and stories is to enable the viewer or reader to spend a little time in another person’s shoes, and if a movie filmed over twelve years—as the actors and actresses themselves grew up and changed with the world around them—can’t do that best, I don’t know what can. In this film there is a lot of cold, concrete pain mixed with the numb, drifting of hopelessness alongside the ecstatic joys of family that emerge even from one so broken. The reality is that in every life, in every family, in every person’s process of growing up, we must deal with the same elemental insecurities and desires. Boyhood, although bleak, induces empathy in an extraordinary way—especially for the people who grew up in the years alongside it.

The story ends with Mason arriving at college, not with any answers to his questions, but having completed his boyhood and ready to start off on a new adventure.

On April 11, 1970, the world watched Apollo 13 takeoff from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, headed to the moon for another lunar landing. Little did people know, however, that this seemingly ordinary mission would be completely different from the others, and that the outcome would be forever written in the history books. Two days into the mission, an oxygen tank in the spacecraft's Service Module exploded, crippling the ship and forcing the crew to abandon the lunar landing. It was a mission that required the teamwork of hundreds, and the prayers of millions, to reach home.

In 1995, director Ron Howard produced a film that accurately depicted the physical and mental struggles the crew of Apollo 13 endured during their unforgettable journey. Titled Apollo 13, the film featured an A-list cast in Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell, Kevin Bacon as Jack Swigert, and Bill Paxton as Fred Haise. Nominated for 9 Academy Awards (including Best Picture) and winning 2 Awards (Best Sound and Best Film Editing), the film was a major hit critically and commercially upon its release, and ended up grossing almost $174 million in the US alone.

In this article, we will take a brief behind-the-scenes look at how director Ron Howard was able to accomplish some technical aspects of the film, such as anti-gravity. We’ll also look at two key areas of the film, the explosion scene and the re-entry scene.To accomplish weightlessness in Apollo 13, Ron Howard used a method to accomplish true anti-gravity: free-fall in an airplane. Tom Hanks notes, “It flies in a parabola; it goes at a 45 degree angle up, and then it pitches over at 25,000 feet. As it goes over and pitches down, you are essentially in free fall inside the cabin” (Apollo 13 DVD). Of course not all of the shots from the film that take place inside the spacecraft were shot from inside the plane, as this would’ve required way too much time and too many resources. As a result, only the shots that showcase the astronaut’s entire body took place on the free falling airplane. The other shots, particularly the medium close-ups or close-ups, involved illusions, smooth editing, and miming by the actors to simulate weightlessness. In the end, director Ron Howard quoted, “If we tried to create the weightlessness with wires, I sort of shudder to think what the movie would’ve really looked like” (Apollo 13 DVD).

This is the type of plane Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, and Bill Paxton filmed in for the full body shots in space in Apollo 13.

Of course the pivotal point in the mission of Apollo 13 was the explosion that occurred only 2 days into the mission. The explosion occurred due to a damaged coil that was built inside oxygen tank 2 in the Service Module. When Command Module pilot Jack Swigert stirred the oxygen tank, the damaged wire short circuited, and the tank exploded. As a result, a catastrophic amount of oxygen was lost, along with a severe power loss (since the oxygen was mixed with hydrogen to create electrical power). The Command Module Systems Controller noted, “I looked at my environmental control system cryogenics display of data and it said I had lost O-2 tank 2 and I was losing O-2 tank 1. I’m looking at not a single failure, not a double failure, not a triple failure, but I’m looking at a quadruple failure. There’s no possible way that could happen in this spacecraft the way it was designed!” (Apollo 13 DVD). Due to the explosion, the crew had to move to the lunar module and use it as a “lifeboat” to survive and make it back to Earth.

Because of the gravity of the explosion, Ron Howard needed to depict the scene as dramatically and accurately as possible. To accomplish this, Howard physically took the camera (and audience) inside the spacecraft to follow the explosion. In the end, it turned out to be a visually resplendent shot. Visual Effects supervisor Robert Legato noted, “No one’s ever seen it, you don’t know exactly what it did, but it has to be dramatic, it has to feel truthful…” (Apollo 13 DVD).

The Explosion scene in Apollo 13. 0:40-0:49 is the shot described in the paragraph above, where the camera is taken inside the Service Module to track the source of the explosion.

Perhaps the best part of the film (and the mission), however, is the ending, as humanity triumphs in bringing back the three astronauts Lovell, Swigert, and Haise. Regarding the spacecraft itself, director Ron Howard had to come up with a way to visually represent re-entry. The “ionization phase”, which is the phase in which the spacecraft travels through Earth’s atmosphere, was tricky to film because, as Robert Legato noted, “there’s no documentation on it and everybody has a different impression. All we had to go by was the astronauts, who said it felt like you’re in a fluorescent tube being lit up. So that doesn’t help us too much but we thought, well when you’re being hit with friction, it would just glow red and then go on fire I guess…there’s a technique of shooting fire where you make it kinda liquidy by instead of shooting fire at 24 frames per second, you shoot it at 4 seconds per frame so it gets really blurry and smeary and creates this kind of…looked like an ion storm to me!” (Apollo 13 DVD).

For the final splashdown of the craft in the ocean, rather than choosing to resort to CGI, Howard used a model of the command module, equipped with real parachutes, and dropped it from a helicopter. Robert Legato commented, “People try to talk you out of it because it’s too simple to work; it’s too easy” (Apollo 13 DVD). The crew still had to build a rig beneath the helicopter to attach the command module model, but even this ended up being less work (and looked more authentic) than using CGI.

The re-entry scene from Apollo 13. For the splashdown, Howard refrains from using CGI, and instead uses a model of the command module and drops it from a helicopter.

In conclusion, with Apollo 13, Ron Howard was able to successfully recreate one of the toughest, but proudest days in American history. Deemed a “successful failure," the Apollo 13 mission was a mission of human triumph over failed machinery. Howard’s smooth direction, combined with solid performances from the lead actors and a sweeping score from James Horner, makes Apollo 13 an elite historical space drama.

On November 3, 1954, a legend was born. An unlikely icon, the great beast emerged from the depths of the Pacific and proceeded to lumber across the world, dominating all in its path. It was neither hero nor villain. It had no real back story, no motives, not even any lines, save for a single world-rending roar. Yet, despite its utterly extrinsic nature, Godzilla went on to become one of the most beloved characters the world has ever known. Six long decades have passed since the original release of Gojira (Honda, 1954), yielding 29 additional movies. The most recent film, Godzilla (Edwards, 2014), was only just released in May. This unprecedented legacy makes Godzilla not only the longest running franchise in cinematic history, but the most prolific as well. Today, Japan reveres the monster as a national treasure. Tokyo is home to multiple statues erected in tribute to the “King of the Monsters”, one standing over 20 feet tall. In America, Godzilla is one of the precious few fictional characters honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It costarred alongside Charles Barkley in Nike ads. At the 1996 MTV Movie Awards, Patrick Stewart even presented the monster with a Lifetime Achievement Award. It is almost impossible to overstate the cultural impact that Godzilla has wrought, as the creature’s influence continues to resound across geographic and generational divides.

Godzilla statue at the Tokyo Midtown Garden in Roppongi, circa 2014.

Yet, for many critics and viewers, the appeal of Godzilla and daikaiju eiga (Giant Monster Films) remains a mystery. They are all too often brushed off as pure schlock, whose continued existence is explained by little more than their comparatively inexpensive production costs and cult appeal. However, this view completely overlooks the nuances which make daikaiju eiga unique amongst the horror genre.

Unlike their western counterparts, Japanese monsters tend to have a great deal more meaning attached to them. They are avatars of far more specific concepts than generic fears of the unknown. This is perhaps never better illustrated then in their own movies, when the military inevitably comes to realize that humanity's weapons are useless against the beasts. There are no silver bullets or cloves of garlic that will ward off Godzilla. A few meager biplanes would not dislodge him from a perch atop the Empire State Building and, unlike Jason Vorhees, Godzilla is not content to exclusively hunt down deviant teenagers in secluded, woodland cabins. No, in every portrayal Godzilla is an unstoppable behemoth. And its wrath is nothing short of apocalyptic. It is that precise element which grants the franchise its universal appeal. One has only to look at Godzilla, towering over miniature skyscrapers, to recognize the creature’s role within its mythology. Godzilla is not merely big. Godzilla is the biggest presence within its narrative, eclipsing even its own world. In all 30 Godzilla movies, there has yet to be one feature where Godzilla was the main character. Godzilla is instead an omnipotent, omnipresent force, around which the actual characters must perpetually navigate.

Godzilla in the midst of his maiden rampage, circa 1954

However, what gives the Godzilla franchise its variety is that the nature of that force has changed to reflect the culture of its time. In the 1950’s, Godzilla was undeniably a Shinto representation of the split atom’s unbridled fury, manifesting itself as a vengeful dragon. Ishirō Honda, director of the original Gojira, described the beast as "war incarnate." Like so many Japanese civilians, Godzilla was meant to be another victim of the atomic bomb. His every footfall was supposed to appear tortured, his rough hide completely encrusted in keloid burn scars. Godzilla was originally envisioned as a nation's anguish made flesh.

Godzilla showing his more fun loving side, circa 1965.

However, despite its bleak origins, Godzilla was quickly re-imagined as a significantly more upbeat character. Throughout the 1960’s and 70’s, it was alternately portrayed as a more generic force of nature and occasionally even as humanity’s benevolent guardian. Such were the Showa years, when the franchise quickly gave way to an extremely campy tone and changed Godzilla from the great antagonist to something of a defender of the human race, constantly battling more malevolent entities. Cyborg chickens with buzz saw bellies, cockroach gods from Atlantis, even mechanical doppelgangers of Godzilla sent from beyond the stars, no threat was too great for humanity's giant, radioactive benefactor. Beyond the world of the silver screen, nuclear power was becoming commonplace. Power plants were popping up everywhere and the atom was now considered our friend, a dangerous volatile friend, but a friend nevertheless. Godzilla, its original avatar, changed accordingly.

Godzilla in the act of literally devouring a nuclear reactor, circa 1984.

In the mid-70’s, a flagging box office forced the franchise to go dormant for over a decade. However, true to character, Godzilla would not stay dead. The leviathan went back to its darker roots in the aptly titled: The Return of Godzilla (Hashimoto, 1984). This film began the Heisei series, a reboot of the entire franchise. In it, Godzilla is treated as a menace that has not resurfaced since its original rampage during the 1950’s. Gone is the jovial giant, who once fought alongside the people of Earth. When Godzilla resurfaces, it is as the destroyer of worlds, come to once again decimate a more modern and technologically advanced Tokyo, which foolishly believes itself invulnerable to such a dated threat. Unsurprisingly, they are quickly proven wrong. The fearsome beast wastes little time in reducing Tokyo to irradiated rubble. Audiences were taken by this radical change of character, and the series was soon back on it's city-stomping feet.

In the wake of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear annihilation had become a grim, but consistent, part of 20th century life. Additionally, events like the incident at Three Mile Island had greatly soured the public's opinion of nuclear energy. The atom had become something of an antihero, as its benefits were increasingly dwarfed by its enormous, and terrifying costs. Atomic power had become a double-edged sword, a poisonous necessity for millions who used it to sustain their daily lives. Once again, Godzilla’s nature mutated to reflect these contemporary attitudes. Throughout the 1990’s and the early 2000’s, Godzilla was depicted as a mostly ambivalent force. No longer the vindictive destroyer of cities, nor humanity’s savior, he became something akin to a hurricane: a great, uncaring storm that would indiscriminately obliterate anything in its path, despite whatever safeguards Japan might put in place. Godzilla continued to occasionally save humankind from all manner of malevolent abominations, but its actions were never spurred on by any sense of altruism, and always ended with ludicrous amounts of collateral damage. Humanity was once again at odds with Godzilla, constantly struggling to devise new means to halt the monster's destruction.

Godzilla: bigger than ever, circa 2014.

It was not until Edwards' Godzilla that the iconic saurian was again portrayed as an even remotely heroic figure. Godzilla was now interpreted as the last guardian of a prehistoric world, aggressively defending its domain: Earth. Any creature foolish enough to challenge its sovereign rule was swiftly meted out the same terrible wrath, be they human or fellow colossi. Having cheated death for eons, it is an ancient beast that will stop at nothing to ensure its continued survival. Its only goal is self-preservation, and it pursues it relentlessly. Cities are leveled and armies reduced to naught but ash in Godzilla's endless quest to retain its position as Earth's apex predator. Consequently, Godzilla views humanity as little more than a minor nuisance, and as such it sees no reason to actively engage them. Despite its entirely self-serving actions, the modern Godzilla still makes for a compelling, albeit profoundly unorthodox Byronic hero.

Godzilla may have originally been imagined as the embodiment of war, but in 2014, the creature unarguably represents an even-more universal concept: Supreme Power. Whether battling Japan’s military or golden, three-headed, time-traveling space dragons, Godzilla always endures. There is no power that can dethrone the King of the Monsters. Godzilla is the great equalizer. When audiences see crowds of terrified civilians fleeing Tokyo, they see CEO’s in solidarity with vagrants, lifelong enemies setting aside their differences so that they may feud another day, and governments reaching across political divides to desperately try to survive a common threat. Cowering under Godzilla's looming shadow, all are humbled and laid low. Be it in 1954 or 2014, audiences the world over have beheld the great beast and marveled at the terrifying truth it represents:

"History shows again and again How nature points up the folly of men."-Blue Oyster Cult, Godzilla

Who you gonna call? For thirty years, it has been Ghostbusters (Reitman, 1984), the iconic paranormal investigation/extermination team which remains a pop culture juggernaut.With the announcement of a third film finally in the works, Ghostbusters is still popular with enthusiastic fans wearing their proton packs at conventions, and even finding a way of recreating the famous Hi-C juice drink Ecto-Cooler.This newest addition to the franchise will be separate from the original movies, with the death of Harold Remis and Bill Murray’s lack of interest in the project, director Paul Freig has announced the new team will be all women (Yurcaba "'Ghostbusters 3' to Star 'Hilarious Women,' Says Director Paul Feig").While nobody has been officially cast for the film, which is slated to begin production next year, there is a lot of speculation and excitement over the direction the film will take. Being born in 1984, the year the first film was released, I grew up amidst the excitement of the original movies and The Real Ghostbusters animated television series in the late eighties and early nineties.I remember playing with all the elaborate toys, and getting goose bumps when the theme song played, while also drinking plenty of Ecto-Cooler myself.Upon reflection, I tend to view Ghostbusters through a more nostalgic lens, due to these memories, but aside from the merchandise and marketing I believe the films were actually quite innovative.The films have elements from both the horror and comedy genres, combined with amazing special effects to create two of the most interesting blockbusters from the eighties.But what really makes the films great is the dialogue.The comic banter between the characters, especially that of Dr. Peter Vankman played by Bill Murray and the other members of the team, constantly juxtaposes the lack of credibility regarding their work as paranormal investigators/exterminators with the actual threat of the ghosts themselves.By doing this the team is always contrasted with more rigid authority figures or sophisticated types: the Dean at Columbia, the EPA, Dana Barrett and her being a classical musician.I think the humorous dialogue exchanges, and amazing special effects combined with one of the most brilliant marketing campaigns that has ever come out of Hollywood has assured that the popularity of the Ghostbusters franchise will be around for another thirty years.

Our world is dying. Vicious dust storms punctuate the Earth, ravaging everything in their path. Because of a massive food scarcity, humankind has reverted back to subsistence farming in order to survive. Nevertheless, blight (rapid decaying and death of plants) has begun to lay waste to the precious fields that still provide decent food to humans. As a result, humanity is on the brink of extinction. The only possible solution? To look up to the heavens, to the stars that shine above us every night, providing a glimmer of hope. To quote Dr. Brand (Michael Caine) in the film, “We’re not meant to save this world, we’re meant to leave it.” Such is the premise for Christopher Nolan’s latest science-fiction film, Interstellar.

Matthew McConaughey, fresh off his award-winning performance in Dallas Buyers Club (Jean-Marc Valee, 2013), plays our protagonist “Cooper," a widowed former pilot and engineer who is selected by Dr. Brand (Michael Caine) as part of a team to leave Earth in search of a new home for humanity. McConaughey delivers another strong performance in a very emotional role. In the film, Cooper opts to leave his two children behind in order to find us a new home. His 10 year old daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy) does not take his decision very well, as she begs him to stay. Nevertheless, Cooper remains steadfast in his decision, but promises to come back.

Cooper will undoubtedly be the character audiences will identify with the most in this film. He has a family, a dream, and extremely difficult decisions to face throughout the film, including whether to see his family again or to save humanity. His daughter Murph, mission member Amelia (Anne Hathaway) and her father Dr. Brand are other well-developed characters in Interstellar. Beyond these, however, characters in the film start becoming one dimensional. It is important to note that director Christopher Nolan focused on the scientific accuracy and theories of the film, even going as far as hiring renowned physicist Kip Thorne as Executive Producer and consultant to the project. As a result, he leaves little room to develop the other characters. Also at 167 minutes, it’s a long ride with a relatively slow beginning. Regardless, the pacing picks up, and the audience becomes immersed in the spectacle and story of Interstellar. Nolan has once again provided an original, well-written screenplay that takes you on an emotional rollercoaster ride through the fabrics of space and time. The visual effects, while (in my opinion) not quite up to par with Gravity (Alfonso Cuaron, 2013), are in themselves a spectacle to behold, especially when viewed in IMAX. Nolan filmed the majority of Interstellar with IMAX cameras. As a result the picture is fully utilized on an IMAX screen, particularly a theater with a 70mm film projector. If at all possible, I definitely recommend seeing it in this format.

Of all the films over the years shown in IMAX, Christopher Nolan's Interstellar is perhaps the best candidate to see in the format.

Although the visual effects are certainly a selling point for Interstellar, the themes of its thought-provoking story are what sets it apart from other contemporary science-fiction films such as Michael Bay's Transformers series or even J.J. Abrams' Star Trek (2009). Nolan drew inspiration for the film from Metropolis (Lang, 1927), 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968), and Blade Runner (Scott, 1982). Blade Runner examined what it means to be human, and how the gift of life is the most important element to humans. Stanley Kubrick's2001 is remembered as a film that explored humanity’s place in our universe, where we came from, how we evolved, and where we are going in the future. Interstellar likewisefully explores this notion, as mankind is pushed to the brink of extinction. 2001: A Space Odyssey was famous for its vagueness and unexplained phenomena presented on screen. It left room for a lot of interpretation and its ending is still being debated almost half a century later. Interstellar, on the other hand, seeks to explain these phenomena in detail. It has answers for the who, why, and how presented in 2001 and fully explains itself. Nevertheless, the ending of the film will leave you sitting in your seat staring at the screen as the credits roll, trying to piece everything together. With Inception (2010), Nolan proved he is capable of pulling off a complex storyline, and he achieves the same result with Interstellar. The result is you will likely need to re-watch the film and go on the journey a second time.

The film also succeeds due to its balance of grand imagery and spectacle with deep and intimate human drama. Nolan stated in interviews prior to the film’s release that Interstellar was his most personal film to date, and it’s easy to see why after your first viewing. It should be noted that Nolan also drew inspiration from Steven Spielberg’s pioneering films Jaws (1975) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), as these films emphasized a strong family element. Nolan emulates this in Interstellar, specifically with Cooper and his daughter Murph.

In Interstellar, Nolan presents and emphasizes deep family relationships and intimacy through the relationship between Cooper (McConaughey) and his daughter Murph (Foy).

Overall, Nolan’s space odyssey is not only a great thrill ride to the far reaches of the cosmos, but also a touching, intriguing, and inspiring space drama that comments on our nature as humans and our place in the infinite universe in which we were set. With our planet deteriorating by getting older and older each passing year, it’s not even entirely impossible that the situation presented in the film could become a reality. In any case, Nolan is proposing audiences to utilize our past iconic accomplishments of landing on the moon and space travel to find a solution. And with the film’s strong commentary on the importance of relationships, by the end of the film you’ll be holding your family and loved ones just a bit closer. Interstellar is in theaters in 70mm IMAX, 70mm, and 35mm. I highly recommend a trip to the cinemas to take the ride and experience Nolan’s unique space adventure.

In case you haven't seen it, below is the second released trailer for Interstellar. This trailer in particular showcases the balance between the grand, epic space odyssey and the deep, emotional human drama.

In Big Hero 6 (Hall & Williams 2014) we are introduced to San Fransokyo: a futuristic, dual culture city where American and east Asian cultures have morphed together. It’s a vibrant, action packed place for our aptly-named protagonist Hiro (Ryan Potter) to live as a child prodigy, spending his genius hustling the local “bot-battle” champions with his disarming youthfulness and ingenious robots. His older brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) goes to the city’s technical school and is building a “health-care assistant” robot called Baymax (Scott Adsit). Tadashi frowns upon Hiro's bot-battling and encourages his younger brother to use his mind for something bigger. When Tadashi takes Hiro to visit his school and see the imaginative and fascinating work that he and his classmates do, Hiro realizes that going to the “nerd-school” and applying his mind to something productive might actually be a lot of fun. Tadashi convinces his younger brother to enter into a robotics competition, sponsored by the school. Hiro invents “microbots”— centimeter long creations, that are controlled by a transmitter that reads the brainwaves of the human operator. He wins the competition, but as they are leaving to go home, the building catches on fire. Tadashi runs back inside to save his professor, and an explosion kills them. Throughout, the movie explores some classic science fiction questions about robot/human cohabitation. The most obvious is the idea of robotic companionship. Can humans connect with/be in relationship with artificial intelligence as they can with humans? After Tadashi dies, Hiro is extremely distraught, and Baymax begins attending to his needs--particularly his emotional healing. Baymax is a character who, because of his programming, is totally devoted to Hiro’s needs and is completely transparent about everything (“I can not do X, I am a robot!”). Baymax is fully aware of his purpose and of his being a robot, which gives him a childlike naïveté and innocence, leading to many entertaining sequences and some unexpectedly touching interactions between this big fluffy “marshmallow” robot and a suffering human child. Throughout the story they grow closer. Baymax is unswervingly loyal and cheerfully self-sacrificing, and though Hiro initially uses him (and his loyalty, which by the biblical definition could be called “love”) to pursue his ends, by the end their relationship becomes much more mutual so that we could arguably call them “friends.” Of course, you could argue that this isn’t really love or friendship because Baymax isn’t initially programmed to do anything else (although you could also argue that he’s programmed to be a healing machine, not a human who has free will, but I digress). Related to robot/human companionship is the idea that artificial intelligence is a key to becoming immortal. An AI can 'survive' as long as its program exists somewhere in some accessible memory storage. In the movie this is compared/contrasted to human life as other characters try to console Hiro, saying that Tadashi “will be here as long as we remember him.” And going off of another definition of the word “immortal,” the movie also suggests that advanced technology is a path to transcendence. When one of the characters feels powerless to stop the evil villain she says, “what can we do? We’re just nerds. We’re just us,” to which Hiro replies, “No, we can be so much more!” and they go on to create super-suits that give them special abilities. This paints technological pursuit in light of the human condition; it reveals the feeling (and the reality) of inadequacy in humans, and that the search for something greater is driving technological advances and exploration. It is an essentially theological pursuit. Not all Disney movies can claim the thoughtfulness and craft of Big Hero 6. While some parts of the movie seem a little rushed, overall the world of San Fransokyo is exhilarating and inspiring. The topic of artificial intelligence and its impact on “real life” is an important topic for ours and future generations to think about, and this movie offers a lovely platform to do so.